Rangers First board candidates

[rbr 1,266]

Sorry , I stayed out of this for 23 pages , but brandy and a weak mind dragged me back in , im out , like someone said I have the same vote as everyone else ,lets see where the cards fall

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I beg to differ I am entirely correct about what you did bh.

[BEARGER 1,830]

I beg to differ I am entirely correct about what you did bh.[/QU

From the man himself

 

........why was why I decided to act.

 

At the time Mr Bennett managed over £2 billion worth of funds at Henderson and I had clients invested in some of the funds he managed. So my concern was about the possible impact on Fund performance if he started to devote part of his time to Rangers. My first obligation was to my clients, ahead of Rangers or any personal interest. Many of my clients knew I was a Rangers fan; had I not raised the matter and fund performance suffered subsequently those clients rightly could have questioned why I did not take action on their behalf.

 

 

I have acknowledged that I made a mistake in publishing the two letters I wrote to Hendersons but I acted in the best interests of my clients which was my obligation at the time.

[trublusince1982 243]

If fans that have not came forward to invest previously are to be attracted then those who have failed to attract their trust previously should be kept as far away as possible in the best interests of the club,

 

To be quite honest any candidate that cannot see that should not be anywhere near such an important role. Being able to make hard decisions based solely on what benefits the club the most whether fair to individuals or not is what i am looking for from those in charge before i trust them with my cash.

 

A new group should have been established with no connection to previous groups/forums or such. This new group should be the official club group and ask that those unofficial groups ask their members to move to the official membership and cease trading. If they refuse then the club should make it clear to all fans they are unaffiliated and will not be invited or encouraged to take part in any club funding initiatives or such in the future and the only fans group to be involved with the club or which has the authority to raise money from its customers is the official club sanctioned group.

 

The only beneficiary or concern should be the club.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I beg to differ I am entirely correct about what you did bh.[/QU

From the man himself

 

........why was why I decided to act.

 

At the time Mr Bennett managed over £2 billion worth of funds at Henderson and I had clients invested in some of the funds he managed. So my concern was about the possible impact on Fund performance if he started to devote part of his time to Rangers. My first obligation was to my clients, ahead of Rangers or any personal interest. Many of my clients knew I was a Rangers fan; had I not raised the matter and fund performance suffered subsequently those clients rightly could have questioned why I did not take action on their behalf.

 

 

I have acknowledged that I made a mistake in publishing the two letters I wrote to Hendersons but I acted in the best interests of my clients which was my obligation at the time.

I never commented on the why only the what.

[Bearman 9]

We have our club back now thank god. People already in place, why have a 'fan representative' to upset the apple-cart?

 

I'm pretty sure our board would rather everything about the running of our club should be left to them and them only without the petty in-fighting going on as I speak interfering in the club.

 

Crooks took over Rangers (still to be proved I concede) but that happened due to, not the fans being unconnected, but the couldn't care less attitude of SDM. Can't imagine King the fan and a man with good intentions wanting to agree to what some glory hunter sitting next to him getting his ear nipped all because of what happened during the terrible times of the past.

 

Dave King has went through a helluva time in Scotland just for the reason he wants to get our great club back on the tracks, the last thing he ever wanted was a group/groups of fans wanting a slice of the success cake off his back.

 

This is just my way of seeing the picture.

[craig 5,199]

This thread proves that unity amongst Rangers fans is a utopian concept that will never happen in our lifetimes.

 

The Tims have done a far, far better job of mobilizing for a common goal (making Rangers Satan) than we could ever hope to obtain.

 

It saddens me to no end.

[Bearman 9]

This thread proves that unity amongst Rangers fans is a utopian concept that will never happen in our lifetimes.

 

The Tims have done a far, far better job of mobilizing for a common goal (making Rangers Satan) than we could ever hope to obtain.

 

It saddens me to no end.

 

That maybe so...only because they have nut-jobs in their support, but their team on the park is shite.

 

Are we to follow their example?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Apologies for butting in as I'm not a member of RF but obviously those in charge following this election will be involved in ongoing fan talks so I do have some interest.

 

Two quick points.

 

Alan Harris has made an insinuation on RM that I attend board meetings of the club. That is untrue. I have never done so and I'm not sure what he hopes to gain by the insinuation.

 

Second and more importantly for the purpose of your discussion, Mr Harris is quoting rules in this thread that RF have not, as far as I understand, adopted. Supporters Direct are just running their election. RF are not members of SD as far as I know and even if they were would be under no obligation to adopt their rules. It would appear therefore that Mr Harris is quoting from a rulebook that doesn't actually apply to those standing. I've no idea why he would do that but given the comments I've referenced above it does seem he has some difficulty with accuracy.

 

Dear Mr Graham

 

I hesitate to respond to one such as your good self whose debating and commentating skills are legend but there area number of inaccuracies in your post that I need to correct.

 

Firstly, I did not insinuate anything about you. I made a comment about "at least one of those who is taking part in the merger talks"; if you took that to refer to yourself then that's up to you. I also wonder why you chose to make that post here since the apparently offending post was made on RM?

 

I am sure that members of RF will be indebted to you for your advice (although I have no idea why you as an RST Board member would feel it is appropriate step into this debate) but whilst you are correct that RF is not currently a member of SD, you are quite wrong to suggest that if RF was a member it could opt out of its rules. I believe that as a former main board member of SD and Chair of SDS I have somewhat more experience in these matters than you. I am advised that the question of SD membership has been discussed by RF on a number of occasions and remains a "live" topic.

 

RF was founded with considerable assistance from SDS. Andrew Jenkin of SDS was appointed as an "independent person involved within the process." (AJ). Approximately 20 hours after nominations closed all candidates were sent the Supporters Direct Code of Conduct for Directors and asked to get "in touch if there is anything within this which you feel does not make you suitable to become a Director of Rangers First."

 

The Code of Conduct for Directors states inter alia:

 

6.4 Directors must "avoid conflicts of interest"

 

24.0 Directors should not be in receipt of hospitality ..... that may compromise their position or lead others to perceive that the integrity or policy of the organisation has been compromised.

 

It also states that all Directors must be elected in an election conducted under the organisation's election policy and have complied with that policy.

 

The SD Election Rules Policy states inter alia:

 

4(a) Candidates must not be an employee of Supporters Direct.

 

So in this context candidates should not be an employee of Rangers FC or Rangers IFC

 

In addition, all Members seeking election to the Society’s Board, Council or Advisory bodies will be required to sign a declaration on the nomination form to confirm that they will comply with The SD ELECTED MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT which states inter alia:

 

2. Qualifications for office. To qualify for elected office with Supporters Direct individuals must not be an employee of Supporters Direct.

 

So again in this context candidates should not be an employee of Rangers FC or Rangers IFC

 

and expands on Conflicts of Interest and Prejudicial Interest and in particular stresses that the member "must consider whether 'an ordinary member of the public, knowing all the relevant facts, would think that their personal interest was so significant that it would prejudice their decision on this matter'".

 

5 (e) Declaring Gifts and Hospitality Elected members should not be in receipt of hospitality, goods, services, gifts or any other benefit, that may compromise either their position or that of the organization, or may lead others to perceive that the integrity or policy of the organization or of the member has been compromised.

 

So anyone who is standing in this election has committed themselves to abiding by the SD Code of Conduct for Directors, which implies compliance with the SD Election Rules which in turn require compliance with The SD ELECTED MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT.

 

However, if the election is not being conducted under SD Rules, why were candidates asked to signify compliance with the Code of Conduct for Directors which itself requires compliance with the SD Rules & Election Policy which prohibit conflicts of interest or the acceptance of hospitality? On the other hand if SD Rules do not apply to this election then precisely what rules do apply and where can I find them? These questions are not directed at you, Mr Graham, since you are not a member of RF.

 

Even if no rules at all apply to the election a director must avoid conflicts of interest and must not accept benefits from third parties. As a company director yourself thoise are Statutory Duties with which you will be familiar are you not?

 

Since the entire business of RF is to purchase shares and fund other areas in Rangers FC I would contend that it would be more or less impossible for any person elected to the Board who has a conflict of interest through financial involvement with the Club or is an employee of the Club to take part in any board discussion so it would be impossible for such a person to function as a Director of RF.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Aw f*&k it.

 

My own personal experience of sitting on a Fans Board with Alan Harris.

 

As most of you but not all will be aware I was the Disabled Rep on the Rangers Fans Board and Alan was for a brief spell the Away Fans Rep.

 

Prior to the meeting at which we would decide how to elect the Office Bearers the interim Chair (ironically enough the Rev Stuart MacQuarrie) circulated a note on how the election process would unfold. There were no objections or major points raised by any members within the subsequent correspondence. I wasn't too fussed personally as I had no intention of standing for office but was content to take part in the vote.

 

The meeting was held in the Blue Room at Ibrox during which I sat next to Alan for the duration which iirc was quite a long meeting lasting several hours. There was quite a bit of time spent on the process of electing the Office Bearers, how to stand, how to second, how long the election period would last, the parameters involved all the stuff necessary to ensure a free open and fair election process. A consensus on the way forward was agreed with absolutely no objections whatsoever by either any members present in the room or taking part via the WebEx facility (basically a fancier version of Skype for those that couldn't attend in person) the decision was in fact unanimous. The meeting ended with everyone leaving in the belief we would proceed forward to elect the Office Bearers (Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary), little did we know what would ensue.

 

The following day when I opened my emails I was shocked to discover that all the plans for the election of Office Bearers had been scrapped due to a complaint which led to Rangers having to call in their lawyers who advised to err on the side of caution and cancel the plans to elect Office Bearers and go back to square one. Effectively the previous meeting had been rendered utterly pointless due to the actions of one member.

 

Unbeknown to any other RFB member one member had raised an objection privately with the Chair (and iirc had asked for anonymity which was granted) quoting extensively from the RFB Constitution and the Roberts Rules for the Conduct of Meetings. Upon reading the email informing us that the election process we’d unanimously agreed had to be scrapped it became crystal clear that the author of the complaint was indeed Alan Harris.

 

We’d agreed a process where we’d rank our first, second and third preferences for each of the positions available. It became clear that Alan thought he personally would stand a better chance of being elected via a first past the post system and embarked on the process of ensuring that would happen.

 

It’s ironic that the RFB Constitution that Alan used to impose his own wishes over the rest of the RFB was the instrument that provided Rangers with the means to dismiss him from the RFB, an even greater irony became apparent towards the end of the RFB when Derek Llambias tried to dismiss the entire RFB however one RFB member a lawyer pointed out that we couldn’t be sacked in the manner Llambias wanted as the Constitution had never officially been ratified.

 

Alan’s dismissal from the RFB was a direct result of his own actions alas I doubt that’s something he could ever acknowledge.

 

I’m not a member of either RF or the RST but wish both organisations well and hope they can come to an accommodation where they can proceed forward in unity as I believe that to be in the best interests of both the Club and the fans in general. My own personal experience leads me to believe that having Alan on the RF Board would not be conducive to the greater good of either RF, its’ members or the Club, in fact history has already proven his presence has not been a positive addition on any fans board, with Alan it’s always Harris First not Rangers First.